61–70 of 263 posts
Youth geeks are just discovering that corporations are all alike. Nothing that the older timers don't already know since the mainframe days. Google is just arriving to the point where the shareholders have more to say than whatever a few geeks scattered around the world might think.
I'm pretty disappointed by the recent dropping of standards that Google has been doing. I'm quite a sceptical person and I've never been a fan of any big corp, but Google has been the one that I've trusted my data in the most and that I've been happiest with. I still trust them with some of my data, but I'm rapidly losing faith in them and in fact I'm starting to think that Microsoft are a more "open" company... and…
>I'm starting to think that Microsoft are a more "open" company... I am disappointed too. But why is Microsoft more open? Does Microsoft have an open messaging protocol that I don't know of? Or an open source operating system? Or an open source browser? The last I checked, they were forcing manufacturers to ship computers with locked down bootloaders so you can't install your own operating system. >But they're privac…
Wait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outloo…
So, to be clear, Google is supposed to make video chat with groups of people, recording to YouTube, desktop sharing, and Google Docs live editing work with XMPP? Or else they're evil?
You could assemble a team of 30 random HN posters and they would be able to do that.
So, I think they could do it, if and only if they wanted to. But they didn't and they themselves said it was because they didn't want to be open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? Well it's not exactly secure, for one thing. > Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. base64 is a method for encoding binary. You cannot send raw binary other ASCII - which is why base64 is used in SMTP. > People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that i…
>Well it's not exactly secure, for one thing. No more or less secure than HTTP/HTTPS. In fact exactly as secure as... >base64 is a method for encoding binary. You cannot send raw binary other ASCII - which is why base64 is used in SMTP. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3030 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Content-Transfer-Encoding >Actually I have given a long list of reasons every t…
HTTPS is end to end encryption. In the instances that SMTP traffic is encrypted, it's only node to node. So SMTPS is less secure than HTTPS.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3030
It's still not /the/ standard though, just /a/ standard; and one that's not particularly well supported in my experience. Most of the SMTP servers I've dealt with have archived and transmitted binary content over base64.
> Your list is full of misinformation.
Please don't be rude. And to address your bullet points:
- already addressed the binary / base64 remark
- already addressed the SMTPS remark
- yes, but those response codes are rarely transmitted back up the stack (and when they are, with a horribly garbled error). I'm talking about rebuilding the entire stack - from client to server - so that users get meaningful responses.
- of course HTTP is standardised. I never said it wasn't. So please don't turn this into a dumb trolling match where you make shit up to win an argument.
- I know SMTP isn't designed to be real time. But there's absolutely no reason why e-mails shouldn't be real time in the modern world. Simply citing IM's as an argument misses the point. IM's are for conversations. Emails are for memos. There's no reason why memo's shouldn't be sent real time. In fact, Android's Gmail notifications are real time. Exchange pushes mail to Outlook clients in real time. There's no reason why real-time shouldn't be the standard for all e-mails. (note: we're not talking about real time character update. Just a standard system for pushing messages instead of the client periodically polling for updates).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>what is wrong with plain text? Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. That person sitting next to you in the coffee shop? He's running a packet sniffer and is reading everything you send, because it's plain text. -- edit: In information security, plaintext means unencrypted. That's true for SMTP, and that's what I'm referring to. Am I wrong?
> Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. Plain text is a style of encoding information (e.g. binary, XML, JSON, plain text, etc). Encryption determines if someone can intercept your message. Something can be both plain text and secure, like HTTPS for one example.
Wait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outloo…
GTalk is still as is. As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone. Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better. Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/sub…
Wait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outloo…
It's unbelievable because it's not true. They're dropping XMPP federation, which outlook.com never used anyway.
What outlook.com has done is they've added an XMPP client that lets you connect to Google's servers in order to send chat messages to GTalk users. That's still going to work.
Also note that what Microsoft have done is allow outlook.com users to communicate with GTalk users, but not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>what is wrong with plain text? Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. That person sitting next to you in the coffee shop? He's running a packet sniffer and is reading everything you send, because it's plain text. -- edit: In information security, plaintext means unencrypted. That's true for SMTP, and that's what I'm referring to. Am I wrong?
> Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. Plain text is a style of encoding information (e.g. binary, XML, JSON, plain text, etc). Encryption determines if someone can intercept your message. Something can be both plain text and secure, like HTTPS for one example.
Youth geeks are just discovering that corporations are all alike. Nothing that the older timers don't already know since the mainframe days. Google is just arriving to the point where the shareholders have more to say than whatever a few geeks scattered around the world might think.
Well put, which is why I have reverted to using Google solely for search.
Wait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outloo…
GTalk is still as is. As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone. Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better. Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/sub…